HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/02/1996 - Regular Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustments (2)
MINUTES
Zoning Board of Adjustment
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Julv,z, 1996
7:00 P.M.
•
•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Sawtelle, Members Alexander, Blackwelder and Hollas
and Alternate Member Ochoa. (Member Rife was in the audience.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Dunn, Planning Technician Thomas, Assistant City Attorney
Shively, City Engineer Laza, Assistant City Engineer Morgan and Graduate
Civil Engineer Homeyer.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board.
Mr. Sawtelle called the meeting to order and explained the functions of the Boazd.
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of June 18,1996.
Mr. Hollas moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 18, 1996 as written. Mr. Ochoa
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Consideration of a request to rehear a drainage ordinance variance
request previously denied by the Board on June 18,1996. The request is to the Conditional Letter
of Map Amendment section of the ordinance for the A&M Consolidated High School site.
(Agenda item #5 will only be considered if the Board agrees to rehear the case.)
Mr. Blackwelder moved to rehear the drainage ordinance variance request. Mr. Hollas seconded the
motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a variance request to the streetscape requirements to
build more than seven contiguous parking spaces in the required 24' landscape reserve at 101
George Bush Drive, lot 1, block 1 of the McDonald's Addition.
Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and stated that since streetscape standazds were
incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance in 1994, this is the first variance request to come before the
Boazd. As referenced above, the request involves the maximum number of contiguous pazking spaces
that can be placed within the 24' landscape reserve without a landscape island to provide a "break" in the
row of pazking spaces. The applicant is requesting the variance to omit the landscape islands in this azea
in order to allow for tour buses and recreational vehicles to pazk lengthwise along the pazking lot edge,
and not be forced to pazk out on Marion Pugh Drive or within the proposed access easement to the
south. A reduced copy of the site plan reflects an exterior row of nineteen parking spaces either
completely or partially within the 24' landscape reserve azea (this site plan was approved by the Project
Review Committee with the condition that a variance be obtained form the Boazd to allow the nineteen
contiguous spaces as shown). The nineteen spaces aze provided in addition to the minimum thirty-two
spaces required by ordinance.
Staff Planner Dunn stated that in cases such as this where certain parking spaces are only partially within
the landscape reserve, it has been the policy of staff to require a landscape island at the end of every
1,134 square feet of pavement within the landscape reserve. This figure of 1,134 square feet is the
equivalent of seven 9' x 18' parking spaces. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance to construct
approximately 2,488 square feet of parking within the landscape reserve area vv~thout a landscape island
(approximately fifteen contiguous spaces). The following special conditions are offered in this case:
(1) Additional greenspace and right-of--way. The area of greenspace is approximately 31%
greater than what would be required if all the exterior parking spaces were completely
within the landscape reserve, and the required landscape islands were provided. There is
also an unusually large area of right-of--way in front of the property. The applicant feels
that this area, coupled with the additional greenspace within the landscape reserve, meets
the intent of the ordinance.
(2) Additional parking. The thirty-two required parking spaces are provided in other areas
of the site. The variance request involved nineteen of the twenty-two parking spaces
provided on the site.
Staff Planner Dunn informed the Board that the applicant states that without the variance, buses and
RV's will have to park out on Marion Pugh or within the adjacent access easement. It could also impact
the surrounding area, as buses and other large vehicles parked on Marion Pugh could contribute to
congestion, poor visibility and other health and safety issues. According to the streetscape plan, the
intent of creating a landscape reserve was to "foster the development of a greener, softer image along the
major and minor arterial thoroughfares of the cit}~'. The applicant feels that the large area of greenspace
and state right-of--way in front of the site meets the intent. Approximately eight surrounding property
owners were notified of the request with no response.
Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing.
• Applicant Ron Blatchley approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He stated that there is
quite a bit of green space near the proposed bus parking because of the existing right-of--way. The
additional green space and extensive landscaping should compensate for the islands that will be removed.
Kyle Hawthorne of 2914 Pueblo Court South in College Station approached the Board and was sworn in
by Mr. Sawtelle. He stated that he is an attorney representing the property owners to the west across
Marion Pugh that is part of the Treehouse Apartments. Mr. Hawthorne stated that the streetscape plan is
attempting to upgrade the integrity of the parking and the aesthetics of development. This particular
commercial development will be looked at as an example with respect to the future development along
George Bush Drive and Wellborn Road.
Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. He suggested that the area be striped for bus parking only so that
the open space would be maintained and there would not be cars parked up to the green space. Wrth the
special striping, the only time there will be anything in that area will be when buses are on the site.
Mr. Blatchley stated that there will be many occasions when there will not be any buses such as football
games when the additional parking may be utilized by vehicles. If so, the vehicles will probably pull in
parallel instead of perpendicular and make the situation more confusing.
Mr. Hollas moved to authorize a variance to the streetscape setback requirements from the terms of this
ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: (1) the
area of greenspace is approximately 31% greater than would be required if all the exterior parking spaces
were completely within the landscape reserve and the required landscape islands were provided; and (2)
the thirty-two required parking spaces are provided in other areas of the parking lot; and because a strict
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant
being: increased traffic and parking congestion due to the probability of a significant number of buses
• utilizing the parking area and the property; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and
substantial justice done. Mr. Blackwelder seconded the motion.
ZBA Minutes July 2, 1996 Page 2 oj4
Mr. Ochoa moved to amend the motion to provide that in the absence of the pazking islands, that the
space be mazked only for buses.
Mr. Alexander expressed concern that if the azea is specially striped for buses, it will only cause more
• confusion for cazs.
The amendment to the motion failed due to lack of a second.
The original motion to approve the variance request passed (4 - 1); Mr. Ochoa voted in opposition to the
motion.
AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of a drainage ordinance variance request to allow
development and expansion of the A&M Consolidated High School tennis courts located on the
northwest corner of the F.M. 2818 and Welsh Avenue intersection prior to an effective
Conditional Letter of Map Amendment. Applicant is Total Program Management for the College
Station Independent School District.
Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and recommended approval of the variance
request since it is the minimum necessary to allow the applicant to proceed with their development plans.
This variance does not grant them the ability to waiver from the Letter of Map Amendment process, but
rather shifts the time frame of such submittal. The applicant will have to meet any and all FEMA
requirements made during FEMA's review. As with any construction project along a creek, regardless of
whether there is a CLOMA involved, there is the risk of affecting properties upstream or downstream if
poor construction practices are used. The City monitors the construction through the inspection process.
If construction debris enters the channel or proper erosion control measures (to keep silt from migrating
downstream) aze not being taken, the contractor is told to correct these measures. In this case the
applicant is proposing to add fill material to the creek overbank while at the same time, removing the
same amount of material from the adjacent upstream overbank. This will equalize the storage volume
needed for the flood waters in the area. The phasing of construction will be such that the cut material
• (that is to be removed) will be taken out prior to any filling. This will assure that at no time during
construction will there be less storage capacity in the creek than is existing. Effectively, all the applicant
is requesting is to shift the centerline of the creek on his property. All cut/fill and transitions will be
wholly contained on their property. The hydraulic characteristics involving the capacity of the creek to
hold water will remain constant. Typically when we see flooding downstream/upstream caused by creek
modifications, it is due to loss of storage capacity in the creek. Someone fills the creek overbanks and
reduces the volume once used to convey and store water and the water must find another place to go (i.e.
flooding). As in all drainage submittals to FEMA, the staff has reviewed the report thoroughly to assure
that the applicant has met or exceeded all Drainage Ordinance requirements before allowing any
construction to occur. The drainage report will be sent to FEMA for their review and comment. The
applicant has submitted information to the staff regazding their expertise in this type of work and they
have shown that they aze knowledgeable in this azea. Approximately thirty-eight surrounding property
owners were notified of the request with no response.
Mr. Sawtelle expressed concern that there would be a period of time where it would be possible for the
applicant to be out of compliance until the Letter of Map Amendment is received.
Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated that if that gap existed, it would be very minimal. The model
ordinance provided by FEMA as a guide does not requUe a CLOMA prior to development. One of the
reasons given by FEMA is that there is a registered professional engineer signing and sealing the work
being submitted. In FEMA's estimation, the CLOMA requirement prior to development is primarily
found in smaller communities that do not have a registered engineer on staff that is able to review the
drainage reports. Therefore, they rely on FEMA's expertise in these situations.
Mr. Sawtelle informed Assistant City Engineer Morgan that from a policy standpoint, he takes exception
to her taking a stance and a position in this case. He stated that she informed the Board that the time gap
• would be minimal; but, how do you know that and what is minimal? There have also been two major
rainfalls recently and if something was overlooked by the analysis it could have an adverse impact on the
public.
ZBA Minutes July 2, 1996 Page 3 0, f 4
Assistant City Engineer Morgan stated that from past experience such as the K. D. Timmons case at
Harvey Road and the East Bypass the time frame for FEMA's review was approximately 90 to 100 days.
She stated that she could not unagine CSISD moving much faster than that since there is work being
done on other areas of the site. There is the possibility of having a major rainfall; however, the possibility
• of flooding is slim because of the cut material that they're removing from the channel at the same time so
that the capacity of the system remains the same.
Mr. Sawtelle opened the public hearing.
Tom Eyeington of Total Program Management approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle.
He stated that consulting engineer David Mays of Cheatham and Associates is present to answer any
technical concerns of the drainage system.
David Mays approached the Board and was sworn in by Mr. Sawtelle. He stated that a conservative
approach was taken for this project and the premise for the study was not ta' allow any more water to
leave the site than what is currently. There will be a total of four detention ponds, all over designed on
purpose because the school is sensitive to the downstream flooding problems. Duruig construction, the
subject creek will be cut out before any fill is placed in the creek so that at a minimum, the creek will
maintain its existing capacity.
Mr. Sawtelle closed the public hearing. He expressed concern of flooding problems along the creek and
not notifying the people along the creek of the request even though it may or may not impact their
property.
Mr. Blackwelder moved to grant a variance from Chapter 13, the Drainage Ordinance from the terms of
this ordinance because undue hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those
requirements, to wit: the inability to expedite the development process on a timely basis while still
meeting FEMA requirements; and because either of the following criteria are met:
(1) Special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict compliance
vv~th the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of his land, to wit: the project is on a critical time frame and all criteria of
FEMA are met; or
(2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant, to wrt: minimize period of construction.
Mr. Hollas seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Sawtelle ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ the motion.
~~~ ~ ~
AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Other business. ~'"
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM N0.7: Adjourn.
Mr. Blackwelder moved to adjourn the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hollas
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (5 - 0).
•
• Pl a an, ie Thomas
APP ~-
Actin Chairman, Gib Sawtelle
ZBA Minutes July 2, 1996 Page 4 of 4
r'
ZONII~TG BOARD OF ADJUSTNlII~iT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638.
I move to authorize a variance to the
yazd (Section 8.T)
lot width (Table A)
lot depth (Table A)
minimum setback
parking requirements (Section 9)
S~tk~'1-scapc
from the terms of this ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to
the following special conditions:
t ~
~ ~~~ ~ N °
,~ ape ~ _ ~~ ? ~ 3 2 .~.~,.--~ n~~ °~'°~`&' ; ~---' ~"'
~. e~ ow.~ - 4 -~ a-/'
and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary hardship to this applicant being:
w
~ p
a
~ ~ ;
and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice
done subject to the following limitations:
~o ~iJZ
~n Date 7'2/~~
Motion made by \~-~~ -
• Seconded by J.~ Voting Results ~~
Chair Signature
YfiRP1638.DOC
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTNIEriT
FORMAT FOR POSITIVE MOTION
Variance from Chapter 13, Ordinance Number 1 T28, Drainage Ordinance.
I move to authorize a variance from the terms of this ordinance because undue
hardship on the owner will result from strict compliance with those requirements, to
wit: ~+
-I~~j.Lyl ~~ -~~° ~~ .rL s! ~ ~. ~i G~~~ G..7Gd//1
and because either of the following criteria are met:
1) Special circumstances or conditions affect the land involved such that strict
compliance with the provisions and requirements of this chapter will deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of his land, to wit:
•
~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. ~ ~f
or
2) The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, to wit:
•
Motion made by S ~J Date ~ Z
Seconded by "`J , ,/] ,~ Voting Results _ ~1~~~ t
Chair Signature
DOP1728.DOC
Zoning Board of Adjustment
~•
i•
•
Name
1.
2.
3.
4. l~ ~ ~-
5. - ,S~ v y e S
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. '
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Guest Register
Date `~
Address
~-~~ ~~ ~-~~~ 1
~fS `t Z
n f'1T i i ~ ~7~
~3~ k ~ ~~crt~ ~~
3lU ~K ~rv~vs> Dv s. G S /X 77